Free Energy and Social Responsibility

The question of social responsibility in its socialist form was introduced to me by Friends in Bath, England, during 1987-8. I subsequently read snippets of the social thoughts of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. Prior to my announcement of the definition of if in 2003, and prior to writing Biological in 2008, I revisited the events of my life of 1994 to 2003 in which I gave each person a chance to be who he or she is, and each did, whence my repeating assessment of Bertrand Russell's correctness. We mathematical logicians do the work we do, correctly, once, for humanity, and for ensuring the problems we remove have permanent removal. Said human to human with emotional empathy for ones who have suffered, there is incorrectness in assigning suffering to the ones who provide the most while assigning frivolity to the ones unable to discern they are in a constructed system. There is incorrectness in letting the most heinous crimes continue while having the means to stop them and feeling lazy, preferring to sip a latté instead. The problem which put itself, uninvited, into my life in expression in 1994 strikes upon the core question of what our species is. Are we mere flesh spreading ourselves across our planet, mostly oblivious to where money comes from, or do we have brains whose synapses produce thoughts discernible across distance and time via correlated actions. Why not do as we have been doing for over ten thousand years, collapse society, have a power grid failure across a geographic area, and start over from the survivors? That way, the problem would repeat. In the future, another mathematical logician could be interrogated by brutal physical force with survival seriously threatened, interrogated most dumbly as expressions of creatures of flesh and bone less civilized than our domestic animals. Amoeba and snails do logic, so when human semblances refuse logic in preference for brutality without gain, something is wrong in their synapses. Therefore, the natural selection method of crashing civilizations and breeding from the survivors was dysfunctional. Therefore the proper solution, for the prevention of physical and economic torture of mathematical logicians as an expression of capriciousness, and for gene pool corrections to replace the urge to capriciously bite the hands who feed us with sensible and civilized urges, this life I am living is lived once, by one human, by me, ending across our entire species the boring debate between the ones among us who prefer words having meaning inside sensible sentences corresponding to reality, and the ones among us who prefer random gibberish in grammatically correct form. Therefore, I sent this email 





from:  Jennifer Prokhorov prokhorov.jennifer@gmail.com
to:  accountingdepartment@hillaryclinton.com,  AskDOJ@usdoj.gov,  info@tutu.org,  Assembly of First Nations <mgoogoo@afn.ca>,  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation <info@gatesfoundation.org>,  Canada <pm@pm.gc.ca>,  Eliana Araujo  <eliana.araujo@mc.gov.br>,  Federal Reserve <publications-bog@frb.gov>,  Government of Croatia Public Relations Office <press@vlada.hr>,  "Government of India, National Portal Secretariat" <indiaportal@goc.in>,  Government of Iraq <info@goi-s.com>,  Government of Portugal <gabinete.ministro@mf.gov.pt>,  Government of Venezuela  <dggcomunicacional@presidencia.gob.ve>,  Hungary <ugyfelszolgalat@nfm.gov.hu>,  International Court of Justice <webmaster@icj-cij.org>,  International Financial Club <tp@mfk-bank.ru>,  "Library, George Bush" <Media.Bush@nara.gov>,  "MOFA Taiwan, One China" <eyes@mofa.gov.tw>,  Navy SEALs <motivators@navsoc.socom.mil>,  Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory <nmf@nelsonmandela.org>,  NSA <nsaarc@nsaarc.net>,  NSA <smallbusiness@nsa.gov>,  President of Finland <presidentti@tpk.fi>,  "Prime Minister's Office, Israel" <pm_eng@pmo.gov.il>,  Rothschild Patrimoine <ContactRothschildPatrimoine.dl@fr.rothschild.com>,  Saudi Arabia <americas@sagia.gov.sa>,  The British Royal Family <press@royalcollection.org.uk>
cc:  feedback@hindustantimes.com,  golpira@tehrantimes.com,   Jason.Burke@guardian.co.uk,  lheard@gulfnews.com,  Chronicle Herald <letters@herald.ca>,  National Geographic <Newsdesk@ngs.org>,  "Seattle Times, business" <business@seattletimes.com>,  Taipei Times <letters@taipeitimes.com>,  Tulsa World <web@tulsaworld.com>,  Washington Post <letters@washpost.com>,  Bank of Canada <info@bankofcanada.ca>,  Bank of Israel <statistics@boi.org.il>,  Bank of Russia <webmaster@www.cbr.ru>,  Banque centrale du Brésil <imprensa@bcb.gov.br>,  Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild <contact@bper.ch>,  Europe Central Bank  <info@ecb.europa.eu>,  International Monetary Fund <ethics@imf.org>,  People's Bank of China <webbox@pbc.gov.cn>,  Royal Bank of Canada <mfrp@rbc.com>,  Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency <info@sama.gov.sa>,  World Bank <delnaggar@worldbank.org>
date:  Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM
subject:  sensibility
mailed-by:  gmail.com


The problem is we think we exist.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/brave-new-world-with-stephen-hawking-sunday-march-11-20120308-1ulpx.html


What started in the 1980s as my desire to teach people how to think turned swiftly into twenty years of two repeated debates,

• whether sentences and physical reality correlating is advantageous, and
• whether physical reality measurably exists.

In the back of my thoughts while many national leaders have shared their lives and thoughts with me, I struggled to explain coincidental earthquakes, http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120311/japan-earthquake-tsunami-one-year-anniversary-commemorations-120311/


Coincidental solar flares are easy to explain,
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_de_d%C3%A9fense_strat%C3%A9gique


Incorrect evaluations of the situation include:

• let's pretend we do not have free energy sitting on the table for negotiated entry into the market,
• let's pretend anything in our lives matters more than this negotiation,
• let's pretend Jon Borwein invented a code with the word not in 1996,
• let's pretend Stephen Hawking could be naive,
• let's pretend that first we handle debts, settle with central bankers, negotiate a price, get everyone to agree on something, force logical people into submission to False Cause and somehow get something positive out of holding everyone hostage, and
• let's be Canadian by insisting we are not supposed to talk about that and we are not supposed to say people who disconnect from physical reality are being stupid.

If I were Stephen Hawking, I would have free energy rigged physically and socially for my death or disappearance by whatever means causing the end of our existence; without threat, the analysis is correct, the position is correct, the debate between sense and random word generation is done. Yes, let's do take a moment to feel sad this biosphere produced via evolution a species who made the mistake of giving free food to a subset incapable of feeding itself, incapable of being cognitively up to a level of living which may be supported within the constraints of our biosphere. We made this mistake at the expense of the biosphere, at the expense of life here. I think this situation could be rigged for worse, however, Stephen Hawking's thoughts have precision. My estimate is merely the existence of Earth is being negotiated.
If we do agree to the continued existence of Earth, life and our continued species (IE via the physical and measurable result of Stephen Hawking's recovery to full health via DARPA's bionanotechnology, free energy, and anyone who hoped to get in the way sitting down and shutting up), then subsequently we may discuss some of the questions national leaders and central bankers and Stephen Hawking have brought to my attention, all related to population management, education, distribution, economic design and related matters.


Basic Logic

• False: there is an afterlife.
• True: While you are alive, you are not yet dead.
• True: The type of dead we are talking about is different from the types of assessed deaths declared by medical doctors in which the body seems to recover for a while and then dies again.
• True: The type of dead we are talking about is dust without reference to Chinese poetry, with reference to lasers, solar power and renewable energy.
• True: Right now, I think life on Earth is dead with probability one,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17168984


The unique solution through this situation is to set aside all other priorities, and have DARPA's bionanotechnology healing Stephen Hawking now, without debate; without senseless random sentences; without misunderstandings; without avoidance; without hope of getting free energy after Stephen Hawking dies since I think we die via putting that option to Stephen Hawking, rightly so; without financial leverage; without distraction from those who still wonder whether physics is, whether neurons are, and whether words correlate with physical reality; without further detection of what sick freaks of nature borrowed this moment in evolution to emote "porn causes permission, yuk yuk."; and without waiting for me to repeat the 2003 intro to basic logic in which I spoke the declaration that I was singing.


Anyone who needs any assurance about his or her personal interests which he or she fantasizes could have higher priority than continuing life on Earth, and we do not know whether life exists elsewhere yet could hope so since this tedium is hopeless, can be reassured that yes, we do have a viable economic system outlined and ready for initiation, albeit perhaps without anyone whose priorities are clearly confused. Anyone still feeling unsure about the real role of physics in our lives, hardly a question for political debate, may look at the pictures in Stephen Hawking's Illustrated Brief History of Time. I have the message from many who hope I may negotiate population and life terms with Stephen Hawking and with some bankers; however, that hope arises from absence of understanding the situation. After I see Stephen Hawking recover his health by whatever news reports work, and after I see this physical situation physically including me and Stephen Hawking in the honest financial market which has successfully circumvented the WTO and has the capacity to break away, then I could willingly discuss filtration with him. Until this world groks and adjusts to acceptance and inclusion of physics and logic, the point in any other conversation is moot.

No Mathematics

The Correct Definition of if in Binary

0 implies 0 and 1 implies 1. Finite state machines replace plans and linear time suits some situations.


The biosphere exists. Our neurons exists. Snails whose behaviour Joseph LeDoux observes and describes in Synaptic Self exist, and behave in agreement with the correct definition of if. Our neurons are active in ways which agree with the correct definition of if. Our biosphere agrees with the correct definition of if. Therefore I also call this Nature's if. It seemed money was invented from nothing due to ambiguities in language inviting cognitive errors. Removing ambiguities and cognitive errors lets us earn real money in this real world, and keep our real lives in this biosphere.



Corrections in Basic Logic


With the incorrect definition of if, A ior A is in agreement with Not-A => A. However, with the correct definition of if, A => A is in agreement with A and A.

Also due to the correct definition of if, the following Axioms of Replacement are invalid due to they are mistaken consequences of the incorrect definition of if.

Transposition is invalid. Instead the correct statement is if A => B then B => A and iff is redundant.

Material Implication is invalid. Instead A => B is similar to A AND B with the only difference being a factor of time.

Material Equivalence is invalid.

The Tautology A = A AND A is valid.

The Tautology A = A IOR A is valid.

The Tautology A = A XOR A is invalid since the statement A XOR A is false when A is true, and is false when A is false.

DeMorgan’s Rule is valid for the inclusive-or (IOR) and invalid for the exclusive-or (XOR).

Commutativity, Associativity and Distribution are valid.

Cause is normally thought of (in Basic Logic) in terms of sufficient conditions and necessary conditions.

However, visible in human trade relations and in Nature, the actual conditions for cause are threefold: sufficiency, necessity and something extra. The something extra prerequisite to cause is quantified as a function of and in proportion to the consequent of cause, and this may be new work not previously considered.

I prefer replacing Syllogisms with Predicate Logic since the latter is able to state all of the former without confusion.

I prefer teaching everyone to reject fallacies as their initial cognitive development training. Yes, advanced logicians do see the practical value of the fallacies, however letting beginners see and reject fallacies could strengthen their cognitive self-defense.

Reference: Introduction to Basic Logic by Patrick J Hurley Return to Persuasive Logic.

Probability of B Given A


With conditional probability we show the unviability of the old definition of if.

The conditional probability of event A occurring if condition B is met is defined by the formula:
P(A|B) = P( A intersect B) / P(B).

Paraphrased from source:Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, Volume 7, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Managing Editor M. Hazewinkel

I've reversed A and B from their traditional roles to deliberately test the old 'only if'. Thus suppose we have A => B with the old definition of if:

=> 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 1

The conditional probability that is worth testing is in the reverse direction: A only if B, and be clear to use the same truth table without flipping it over for convenient escape of the question. So A is on the left-hand side and B is on the top of the truth table, same as for A => B, and what we are testing is B => A with conditional probability and both definitions of if.

Observe that P(B) = 1 in any situation in the old definition of if. Therefore, the statement that B is given is meaningless. Therefore, in the old definition of if, P(A|B) = P(A) in all four cases: A and B have empty intersection; all three of (A intersect B), A\B and B\A have non-empty intersection; or either is a proper subset of the other.

Observe the new definition of if has in some cases the only if direction being identical to the if direction, preserving the formula from the Soviet Encyclopaedia of Mathematics.

Infinity


I prefer clearly disambiguating finite from countably infinite from more than countably infinite.

Prove we have more than countably infinite real numbers without reference to Cantor's Diagonal Argument:

Let N be the set of all natural numbers, 0, 1, 2... and let R be the set of all real numbers. Both N and R are infinitely large. The size of N is called countable infinity and the size of R was traditionally called uncountable infinity, now known as more than countably infinite. The set Q of rational numbers is countably infinite.

Proof of there being something more in R than in Q:

Let Q be the set of rational numbers. Write Q as the union over each n in N of {m/n | m is each integer}. Proof that the set of all real numbers, R, is beyond countably infinite may be done by showing that the proper subset of irrational numbers is uncountable. For this proof, hold N as N without 0. Suppose that the set of irrational numbers, R\Q, is countable. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between Q x Q and Q x (R\Q). List Q x Q with the m values ordered 0, +1, -1, +2, -2, ... and with the n values 1, 2, 3, ... such that our matrix has 0 in the upper left corner the top row is 0, +1, -1, +2, -2,..., and the second row is 0, +1/2, -1/2, +2/2, -2/2,..., and so on.) According to our supposition, all real numbers are now in our matrix. Remember Pi. We know Pi is transcendental and therefore is without a rational representation. Therefore R\Q is beyond enumerable and therefore R is beyond countably infinite.

I confess the proof contains a contradiction.

Multiply-Interpretable Present


Now exists, and is always happening. Multiply-interpretable present situations have different optional futures.

General Comment about malevolence, how to see and remove that: 

Due to the correct definition of if, some mathematicians shall re-write some mathematics proofs which were proofs by contradiction, and I think it makes sense to rewrite also proofs which relied on Modus Tollens and other now inoperable Axioms of Replacement. I accept arguments which clearly prove existence of some things while holding open constructive options per positive motivation.

Friedman's operating assumption is the universe appears the same as interpreted via any direction from any point inside the universe. However, insofar as human information systems may be analogous to space manifolds, clearly the reported local area data stream differs rather than as intrinsic fluctuation, instead as an expression of differences of the quality of measuring and reporting devices. Thus, does anyone have any right to say anything is positive and constructive, or that could be relative? Instead, I prefer retaining reference to the biosphere and to ancient financial and trade systems which work together with ternary logic and the biosphere since I think this might suffice to remove malevolence from anyone pretending to do good while merely mugging the ones who construct. To what extent does the analogy of human minds in societal data generalize to particles in space? Parasites?

Could division be fast subtraction?

The expression multiplication is fast addition suits the ones for whom an interesting insight is expressed. I admit the expression had me wonder during the late 1980s why we do not say division is fast subtraction. Rather than wondering how the calculations work, I was wondering why the inverses were not lining up.

Alrighty then, let us review how the calculations work. Matrices and Cartesian coordinates are nice introductions to what multiplication could be. Essentially, handed a finite set of compartmentalizable stuff, we partition stuff, and when we partition stuff as though with a cookie-cutter, then we make available to ourselves relatively fast computation of the volume of stuff as the quantity of cookies cut times the volume of stuff in each cookie. Inside such contexts, some dual concepts are introduced together, including variables + constants, addition + subtraction, multiplication + division, and = seeming to be the verb to be, and seeming to be a full declaration of sameness in all attributes. The 1965 edition of Mathematical Logic by R. L. Goodstein distinguishes in the introduction The Function of Mathematical Logic the conceptual differences between knowing how to compute the partitioning of r by q for some real number r and some fraction q versus describing what has the methodology work, versus winning a dispute about that. Familiar to anyone is the locution, to divide by a fraction, multiply by the reciprocal; however, who has the capacity to say what has this work without algebraic reliance on the calculi and without the presumption of duality being complete includes mathematical logicians. The answer to my question, how division differs from fast subtraction, is division is a partition whereas subtraction is displacement, a translation from observed-event-space to private-event-space. Pardon me for inventing names for some of these concepts while working through this.

The distinction in a nutshell is, when we see a mature elephant who very convincingly seems to weigh 10 pounds on Earth, rather than concluding we have found our first light elephant, instead we conclude the scale was miscalibrated. Ditto with time; if/when anyone wakes inside 1990s time management systems near the 49th parallel on Earth with all geographically local time declaration devices claiming 10:00 am yet the night sky is observed, then the time declaration devices are miscalibrated, regardless of how much they agree with each other. In grade school when teaching subtraction, we traditionally teach take away 3 from 5 rather than teaching translate 5 to have 3 displaced to the other side of 0 from which we agree to look away since the other side of 0 is private. 

I have been considering how I prefer to have us get the most out of my review of logic, calculi and related concepts without umbrage. Sure, we have the question of binary and ternary calculations however, most striking to me is the defense (against what conversation?) displayed in expositions of mathematical logic, leading me to wonder how straightforwardly these same concepts might be eloquently expressed were we to have mathematical logicians conversing in safety, without experiencing our existence nullified as though at war in every step we take. Who put such semblance of war in our conversation space I do not know, yet, Goodstein visibly expresses the entire self-defense structure, as does Bertrand Russell in The Principles of Mathematics. Let us examine the self-defense of Goodstein's presentation.

I confess some familiarity with Sociology and Dramaturgy introduced to me by my adoptive father Michael Overington whose books I omitted reading, and with whom I debated reality partitions and reality management for 16 years. These fond memories include my fascination with observing a Phi Beta Kappa mind who claims and produces convincing evidence of absence of mathematical and basic logic skill yet does so with algebraic calculations of basic logic and fallacy formulations perfectly intact. Aristotle gave us a bit of a conundrum when he rejected India's concept, the number zero, thereby handing our species our traditionally most coveted and most lucrative construction: nested binary debates. Our persuasions seem convincingly of two types: logic else fallacies. Do logical and fallacious people belong together else apart? Are fallacious arguments right else wrong? Let us bridge the conceptual gap between logic and fallacies as persuasive devices, for world peace. See the economic driver in the algorithm: scan the world, select two examples of whatever, hire lawyers to debate via a series of binary locutions which example of whatever is correct; repeat. Dick Cheney in In My Time reveals the related economic driver of top-down control applied to the masses as the cooking process of punching down risen dough in yeast breads, necessitating massive job creation for supervision of arbitrary control devices, pp 58 to 62. Ostensibly Aristotle wanted to prove God's existence thus by coincidence gave Galileo a challenge. Thank goodness Aristotle's accidental refutation of the physical existence of zero coincidentally drives money creation in western civilization. Examples of valid interpretations of physical instantiations of zero include our synapses which are nor axons nor dendrites; the spaces on roads into which we drive our vehicles else collide; empty food dishes; empty bank accounts; space available in tax-free savings accounts; absence of inclusion in society; the gap between bones in our joints; and for anyone still counting fingers, the spaces in between our fingers really does have measurable, observable existence. Matryoshka dolls solve Zeno's Paradox; the point being, the limit infimum of [0, 1] does exist and is zero regardless of any so-called mathematician's opinion otherwise, and by reverse direction of theoretical proof and physical observation, the limit supremum of [0, 1] does exist and is one, again regardless of any so-called mathematician's opinion otherwise. Incorrect calibration during physical observation combined with Appeal to Authority yields the marriage of Appeal to Ignorance with Appeal to Force, which exemplifies that sort of persuasive technique Aristotle establishes differs from logic together with correctly calibrated physical observation. A positive outcome of this exercise includes the convincing observable semblance of the force of gravity per se in Economics, admittedly a conceptual re-categorization which may have surprised Newton and which has me curious about the theory of gravity.

History informs us humanity apparently felt like spontaneously generating logical definitions of numbers, for communicating with unambiguous clarity what a number is thus also nailing what a number ain't, in the 1890s, exemplified by Gottlob Frege's introduction in 1894. (Goodstein, p2) Specifically, prior to Frege's publication, there were social conversations providing sensible context for Frege's publication, without which Frege's publication could have occurred as irrelevant, nonsensical, disobedient, nonconformist, nit-picky. Prior to our human minds exerting control are indicators of some absence of and some necessity for control, whether the inspiration to exert control comes from fear, desire to drive money, desire to have power, and alternative quests. Frege sacrificed some opportunities expressing his preference and his priorities among his options; he opted to exert his control of the definition of numbers. Something relevant happened prior, for example, something which could have questioned the reality construct of numbers, such as the seemingly benign and semi-competent random locution of numbers and real life being allegedly unrelated, and perhaps the social context in which Frege's publication occurs as acceptable has threats upon the reality construct of numbers posed as jokes. Without knowing Frege's societal context, from being human and knowing humans, clearly we normally have absence of spontaneously feeling like logically defining numbers unambiguously without any motivation, merely on a whim. IE minds in societal contexts are analogous to particles in waves, cf deBroglie. For example, my 2010 solution to Wikipedia's public claim of the openness of Waring's problem has been silently ignored since 2010, showing my absence of inclusion in peer review publication has been driven by societal context.  If Frege had been interpreted as suitable exclusively for slave labour, a forced idea generator for the benefit of the work on paper of lesser minds, empty-headed, off-kilter and irrelevant, then his logical definition of numbers could have remained unpublished and thus unread by Bertrand Russell in 1903. Via defining numbers, Frege and Russell disambiguate equality from similarity and establish the importance of one-to-one conceptual correspondence as a valid and real constructive method. How tight, how strong this conceptual, logical insistence on clear and honest correlation between physical observation and words for human communication expresses the existence of the unnamed unwelcomed uninviteds infiltrators in human conversation, existence proven by shifted demand curves of mathematical logicians responding, demonstrating the will and importance of this human defense.

References
Mathematical Logic, R. L. Goodstein, Leicester University Press.
Conversations en famille from 1986 to 2003.

Several classes in the honours mathematics stream, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Zero, Charles Seife.